Umm, it was more than just about speeding... they were involved in an accident (poor Joachim was driving) and I think the thought of losing both her sons scared the bejesus out of QM and I suppose the thought of losing the two closest in line to the throne scared the Danes as well.

But just in regards to the Mary speeding thing, I hope a Dane on this forum can translate the Se og Hor article for us. Because from what I've heard from those who have actually read the Se og Hor article, I don't think anyoen can really confirm that it was Mary driving that car, and that the 140kmh figure was merely someone's guess (pls correct me if this is wrong, but apparently the "source" of this rumour was a guy or woman on a bike who was "there" at the time... this person made a guess as to the person driving the car - apparently Mary - and also made a guess as to how fast the car was going - apparently 140... I mean unless that person is an expert at guessing how fast a car is going, then i don't think its very reliable. But one thing at a time. Remember that the magazine that all the other international magazines are relying on here is Se og Hor... the mag that reported that Mary was going for pregnancy scans.... and then ALL the international magazines/newspapers followed suit! I mean, talk about the blind leading the blind!

So unless you're prepared to believe the source of the "Mary is pregnant" stories, then I wouldn't be too ready to accept this new rumour. Or you may, its up to you. Personally, I don't think Se og Hor is the most reliable of sources (I believe this is also the magazine who's editor had no qualms in printing pics of Frederik peeing into the bushes *rolleyes*).

So if its not too much of a hassle, can someone please translate the article for us?

Well, Se og Hør is Se og hør, sometime they get it right other times, not so much...

However the palace spokes person that said that the Royal Family always respects the traffic laws was OBIOUSLY lying. They have been caught speeding several times. So if she was going to tell the truth she should have said thet they follow the speedlimits most of the times, except when they have a plane to catch or....

Hmm, I suppose. But I suppose if we are going to be strict about it, then I suppose it would also be correct to say that almost nobody respects the traffic laws. Coz at some point, advertently or inadvertently, we have gone over the speed limit (especially when going down some dratted hill or not realising its school time and that school time speed limits apply), or parked illegally, or did a U turn where we weren't supposed to, or crossed a double line etc.

However when we commit traffic infringements, the whole nation doesn't focus on us and what we've done. Pay the fine, or in some cases, do some community work. But it takes much more than one or two traffic infringement for someone to question our respect for traffic laws, and even more for that "disrespectful" tag to be attached to us permanently. Royals on the other hand can be criticised more easily, and the label in most cases always stays with them.

Perhaps the spokesperson should not have said "always". But personally, I think its quite harsh and unrealistic to equate "always respect" with being perfect on the road at all times (even when its not recorded), especially as I don't think anyone here has always and at all times upheld every single traffic law.

I know this is splitting hairs, but sometimes, I choose to breach traffic laws, not because I have less respect for that traffic law, but because the other competing consideration is much more important at that particular time. Does this make sense?

While I agree that mostly everyone who drives has violated traffic laws at least once, whether it be speeding, an illegal U-turn, parking where we shouldn't or whatever, if we are caught for these violations we are held accountable for them and must pay the fine or whatever.

Just because Mary (or other royals) are the focus of public attention doesn't excuse them for making the same violations other normal people do and doesn't excuse them for violating rules. I think this is where Britter's point of "where does one draw the line" comes in. Laws are laws and every citizen of the country should follow them and be held accountable to them. We can't say that it's okay for Mary to speed a little but not okay for Citizen X. If Mary is a citizen of Denmark then she should follow the same laws as every other citizen.

As for having other considerations that are more pressing, so you excuse that speeding -- that's not right. We could all come up with 10 reasons to speed: I'm late for my doctor's appointment, I need to catch my airplane, my mom is waiting for me to pick her up, etc. But if all the other drivers on the road had the same excuses then our roads would be not only chaotic but also very dangerous. Hence traffic laws.

And as stated above, choosing to violate traffic laws is a choice one makes. I chose to speed, you choose to speed, Mary chose to speed. But that doesn't make the choice right, let alone legal.

Nobody is above the law, even royalty. We shouldn't excuse royals for some of the things they do, especially when there are clear cut rules (i.e. laws) determining what they can/can't or should/shouldn't do. We can excuse royals for not wearing an appropriate hat to an event, but certainly not for violating clear cut, defined laws.

I agree Alexandria-but now I ask, if we are saying "Every citizen must respect the laws of Denmark-even the Royals" then what is the point in offering Dipolmatic Immunity?

A good question ...

What kind of diplomatic immunities do royals enjoy? I'm not really sure about this. The same as politicians working or representing their home countries in another country enjoy?

A few years ago I heard a story on a news magazine about a foreign diplomat who was in Washington, D.C. and went out one night, got drunk and proceeded to get into his car and drive drunk. He, sadly, killed a young couple, parents of 2 children. But because he was an amabassador, he enjoyed diplomatic immunity and as such, was not charged with drunk driving or manslaughter as anyone else would've been. He returned to his country (I forget which country it was now) and carried on with his life while two little kids went on with their life with their parents. As the story went on, it was revealed that this ambassador had been caught on several occasions speeding but because of diplomatic immunity on such matters, he was never fined or even received as much as a warning. Ever since this story I've been opposed to, on the whole, diplomatic immunity for anyone, politicians and royals alike.

A few years ago I heard a story on a news magazine about a foreign diplomat who was in Washington, D.C. and went out one night, got drunk and proceeded to get into his car and drive drunk. He, sadly, killed a young couple, parents of 2 children. But because he was an amabassador, he enjoyed diplomatic immunity and as such, was not charged with drunk driving or manslaughter as anyone else would've been. He returned to his country (I forget which country it was now) and carried on with his life while two little kids went on with their life with their parents. As the story went on, it was revealed that this ambassador had been caught on several occasions speeding but because of diplomatic immunity on such matters, he was never fined or even received as much as a warning. Ever since this story I've been opposed to, on the whole, diplomatic immunity for anyone, politicians and royals alike.

Good point. I agree. I think he was Russian too which might have been one of the reasons for not shaking any feathers. But I think there should be no immunity as well.

While I agree that mostly everyone who drives has violated traffic laws at least once, whether it be speeding, an illegal U-turn, parking where we shouldn't or whatever, if we are caught for these violations we are held accountable for them and must pay the fine or whatever.

Just because Mary (or other royals) are the focus of public attention doesn't excuse them for making the same violations other normal people do and doesn't excuse them for violating rules. I think this is where Britter's point of "where does one draw the line" comes in. Laws are laws and every citizen of the country should follow them and be held accountable to them. We can't say that it's okay for Mary to speed a little but not okay for Citizen X. If Mary is a citizen of Denmark then she should follow the same laws as every other citizen.

As for having other considerations that are more pressing, so you excuse that speeding -- that's not right. We could all come up with 10 reasons to speed: I'm late for my doctor's appointment, I need to catch my airplane, my mom is waiting for me to pick her up, etc. But if all the other drivers on the road had the same excuses then our roads would be not only chaotic but also very dangerous. Hence traffic laws.

And as stated above, choosing to violate traffic laws is a choice one makes. I chose to speed, you choose to speed, Mary chose to speed. But that doesn't make the choice right, let alone legal.

Nobody is above the law, even royalty. We shouldn't excuse royals for some of the things they do, especially when there are clear cut rules (i.e. laws) determining what they can/can't or should/shouldn't do. We can excuse royals for not wearing an appropriate hat to an event, but certainly not for violating clear cut, defined laws.

I wasn't arguing that royals should retain their immunity. I'm all for royals being held accountable for their actions like the rest of us. All I was trying to point out in my posts were (1) that we can't really know for sure that it was Mary nor can we confirm that she was travelling at 140kmh, and (ii) since I am not perfect on the road, I think its a bit rich for me to criticise another for not being perfect on the road. Hold them accountable for their actions, fine them, whatever, I don't have a problem with that - I'm all for it (so I actually do agree with your point Alexandria, except for the fact that I think you misinterpreted what I'm saying). But I don't think we ought to be too critical because someone's committed a traffic infringement, because we've committed them too.

In regards to other considerations excusing ones speeding, I'm not actually trying to argue this. What I was trying to discuss was the criticism that because you've committed a traffic offence, you don't respect traffic laws all the time. I think one's "respect" for a huge body of law such as the traffic law should be influenced by the totality of one's actions on the road, and that one or two incidences (especially unconfirmed incidences) shouldn't mean that one has to keep qualifying themselves by saying "I don't respect traffic laws all the time because I did this, did that...." I mean, I love my parents, but I don't say "I love my parents, except this one time when I shouted back at them, or when I slammed the door, or smoked when I wasn't supposed to" etc.

I also think we should qualify what we say by saying that no one can confirm that Mary did in fact speed. As stated before, the source is Se og Hor, and Se og Hor based their criticism on what one person thought he saw (might add that this person didn't have a radar or anything so I don't know how a person can say "o, she drove 140)" and have it accepted as truth).

Or is this readiness to accept this story due to the fact that some people just can't wait to criticise the CPss? I remember very well how, when the pregnancy rumous surfaced, some of us wrote that "I won't believe it until we have confirmation from the palace", yet when this rumour surfaces, we have no qualms in accepting this rumour as truth? Its probably just me, but I tend to think that a negative rumour must satisfy a higher treshold before I'll accept it, compared to the lower threshold when it comes to accepting positive rumours (a bit like the different tests for civil and criminal cases.... balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt etc, although I'm not using these tests, but something like it). I mean for example, I'll readily accept the report that Mary helped some old pensioner, but won't readily accept the rumour that Fred has an illegitimate daughter etc.

Again:
1. Source = Se og Hor (recently caused other magazines, both Danish and international, to report that the CPss was pregnant... which we all now know was totally bs);
2. Based on = what one person thought she/he saw;
3. 140 kmh = one person's "guess" as to how fast the driver was going, reached without the help of a radar.

Or is this readiness to accept this story due to the fact that some people just can't wait to criticise the CPss? I remember very well how, when the pregnancy rumous surfaced, some of us wrote that "I won't believe it until we have confirmation from the palace", yet when this rumour surfaces, we have no qualms in accepting this rumour as truth? Its probably just me, but I tend to think that a negative rumour must satisfy a higher treshold before I'll accept it, compared to the lower threshold when it comes to accepting positive rumours (a bit like the different tests for civil and criminal cases.... balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt etc, although I'm not using these tests, but something like it). I mean for example, I'll readily accept the report that Mary helped some old pensioner, but won't readily accept the rumour that Fred has an illegitimate daughter etc.

Jasl, from my end, and it seems from Britters' end (though I cannot speak for her), I think we are taking the discussion beyond this matter being strictly about Mary. As you can see from both of our latest posts we refer to Mary as well as other royals, not strictly Mary. I personally would have this same reaction if we were talking about Frederik or any other royal. The incident with Mary is what started this discussion but is not limted to the actions of Mary.

That was my point of view as well, I'm speaking of other Royals when we discuss this now! I would also like to point out we are no longer speaking directly about the speeding ticket (s) but about all actions and laws of a country.

Does anyone know what exactly Diplomatic Immunity incurs? What it means and what it includes? It seems it's rather unclear, and many things migh possibly fall under that catergory!

__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It&#39;s a magic everyone needs to experience&#33;

Because this thread is about Frederk and Mary (and hence the confusion) and since some of us are discussing this matter as it pertains to all royals and not just Mary, I've recopied some of the messages to this thread, where we can carry on the discussion: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...d=1#post139397

September 9, 2004. Crown Princess Mary pictured during the inauguration of the Fredensborg-Humleb¾ k municipality's 'Health Week' at the square in Fredensborg. This year the theme of the Health Week is 'Health in time - time for health'. Photo Keld Navntoft/Scanpix

I absolutetly love those shoes...and now I must find out who designed them and find a pair of my own! I'm rather jealous of Mary's shoe collection, she has a rather large one or the most gorgeous and interesting shoes! And lucky enough for me, the climate is fairly temperate in both NYC and Denver that I could get away with wearing shoes such as those.

__________________

__________________
Have you ever wished on a star? It&#39;s a magic everyone needs to experience&#33;